search_atoms

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully preview the return payload (entity info, as_subject_triples relationship data, financial fields like market cap and shares), but says nothing about result limits, ordering, pagination, or whether a multi-query request merges or keeps separate result sets.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with what is searched, then what is returned, then when it shines. The as_subject_triples parenthetical and financial-field list are dense but each earns its place by telling the agent what it will get back.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job on the return side but leaves the input contract unexplained. An agent knows what to expect back but not how to shape a multi-query request or interpret its results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter `queries` has 0% schema coverage — no description, no item semantics — and the description never mentions it. The agent cannot tell from either source that the input is an array of search strings, how multiple queries are combined, or how results map back to each query.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb (search) and names the resource types covered (accounts, things, people, concepts) plus the matchable fields (name, description, URL, ENS domain). It is clearly a broad entity search, which implicitly separates it from narrower siblings like search_account_ids and search_lists, though it never names them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It offers positive usage signals — 'Excellent for ENS names, discovering social connections, and semantic relationships' — which tell the agent what this tool is good at. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or pointing to any of the five sibling tools as an alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.